1. Title, director and release year?
Gasland, Josh Fox, 2010.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film focuses on communities in the United States impacted by natural gas drilling and, specifically, a stimulation method known as hydraulic fracturing that has poisoned groundwater supply and made people sick.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The narrative is made through an investigative journey. Josh Fox receives an offer from a natural gas company offering to lease his family’s land in Milanville, Pennsylvania for $100,000 to drill for gas. Throughout the film he interviews people who have taken up on the offer and how their water and health has been affected as well as professionals who know the science to why that happens (the website also offers a point-by-point rebuttal to criticisms from gas companies – so a lot of scientific information is supplied). The film has emotional appeal in that there are real people who are interviewed who have been severely affected – catering to the sympathies of people of similar demographics (whit e family-oriented Americans).
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The sustainability problems the film draws out are ecological, informational, technological, and legal. Fracking chemicals have been found in water sources that provide for neighboring towns. These chemicals are very dangerous - in one case, a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane leaked into the residential water supply. Informational-wise, people accepting the offers from these gas companies may not comprehend what exactly they are agreeing to. This entire problem of hydraulic fracturing is also almost entirely technologically based, since it is what our technology is deliberately doing the Earth’s surface. Finally, the legality of the entire operation is questionable in that although gas companies are legally bound to provide alternative water sources to those they have affected, externalities that the rule doesn’t cover (harm to the ecosystem and nearby crops, for example) aren’t considered.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The image of water being set on fire is very persuasive and compelling. There is no doubt that there would be something off about the water if such an incident can happen.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film was a little boring to me, despite it being about a very important issue. While I care a lot about safe drinking water, I found Gasland’s presentation a bit dry and not that memorable overall (save for a few scenes like the water catching fire).
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film bests addresses audiences that might have received similar offers by gas companies. Or by people who support natural gas use and thus further its demand. By properly displaying the issues with the technology, people can re-evaluate their decisions and determine if this is what they really want to happen.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It might be in the filmmaker’s best interest to also portray Halliburton’s side of the story and perhaps give a point by point analysis to their statements. I would also like to see alternatives to natural gas or fracking and the technologies that the film would rather support so that they can offer a solution instead of just complaining about the problem.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The movie’s website suggests people to contact elected officials, find out about local organizations that support the “Frac Act” (a bill attempted to be passed), and check out action alerts. Action alerts are actions you want people to take, an event you want people to attend, or a piece of important, timely information you want to share. The website also urges the audience and especially those affected to share their experiences with other people.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching the film I did some research and came across the FRAC Act, or the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. Its aim is to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act. This would require the energy industry to disclose the chemicals it mixes with the water and sand it pumps underground in the hydraulic fracturing process, currently kept as a trade secret.
Gasland, Josh Fox, 2010.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film focuses on communities in the United States impacted by natural gas drilling and, specifically, a stimulation method known as hydraulic fracturing that has poisoned groundwater supply and made people sick.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The narrative is made through an investigative journey. Josh Fox receives an offer from a natural gas company offering to lease his family’s land in Milanville, Pennsylvania for $100,000 to drill for gas. Throughout the film he interviews people who have taken up on the offer and how their water and health has been affected as well as professionals who know the science to why that happens (the website also offers a point-by-point rebuttal to criticisms from gas companies – so a lot of scientific information is supplied). The film has emotional appeal in that there are real people who are interviewed who have been severely affected – catering to the sympathies of people of similar demographics (whit e family-oriented Americans).
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The sustainability problems the film draws out are ecological, informational, technological, and legal. Fracking chemicals have been found in water sources that provide for neighboring towns. These chemicals are very dangerous - in one case, a house exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane leaked into the residential water supply. Informational-wise, people accepting the offers from these gas companies may not comprehend what exactly they are agreeing to. This entire problem of hydraulic fracturing is also almost entirely technologically based, since it is what our technology is deliberately doing the Earth’s surface. Finally, the legality of the entire operation is questionable in that although gas companies are legally bound to provide alternative water sources to those they have affected, externalities that the rule doesn’t cover (harm to the ecosystem and nearby crops, for example) aren’t considered.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The image of water being set on fire is very persuasive and compelling. There is no doubt that there would be something off about the water if such an incident can happen.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The film was a little boring to me, despite it being about a very important issue. While I care a lot about safe drinking water, I found Gasland’s presentation a bit dry and not that memorable overall (save for a few scenes like the water catching fire).
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film bests addresses audiences that might have received similar offers by gas companies. Or by people who support natural gas use and thus further its demand. By properly displaying the issues with the technology, people can re-evaluate their decisions and determine if this is what they really want to happen.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
It might be in the filmmaker’s best interest to also portray Halliburton’s side of the story and perhaps give a point by point analysis to their statements. I would also like to see alternatives to natural gas or fracking and the technologies that the film would rather support so that they can offer a solution instead of just complaining about the problem.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The movie’s website suggests people to contact elected officials, find out about local organizations that support the “Frac Act” (a bill attempted to be passed), and check out action alerts. Action alerts are actions you want people to take, an event you want people to attend, or a piece of important, timely information you want to share. The website also urges the audience and especially those affected to share their experiences with other people.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching the film I did some research and came across the FRAC Act, or the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. Its aim is to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act. This would require the energy industry to disclose the chemicals it mixes with the water and sand it pumps underground in the hydraulic fracturing process, currently kept as a trade secret.
References:
http://www.propublica.org/article/frac-act-congress-introduces-bills-to-control-drilling-609
http://www.naturalnews.com/032498_fracking_drilling_companies.html